Overview

Three probation officers from Los Angeles County are facing misdemeanor charges for allegedly manipulating medical records to avoid their responsibilities at juvenile detention facilities. The charges highlight concerns regarding integrity and accountability within the probation department.

Key details

  • Officers charged include Christopher Leho, Octavia Davis, and Diane Bullock Smith.
  • Christopher Leho, 54, from Rancho Cucamonga, faces three misdemeanor counts.
  • Octavia Davis, 55, from San Bernardino, and Diane Bullock Smith, 61, from Palmdale, each face one count.
  • Leho is accused of submitting altered medical notes in August 2023, December 2023, and May 2024.
  • The notes allegedly restricted Leho to desk work, preventing him from strenuous duties.
  • Investigators found Leho had not been evaluated at the times of the submitted notes.
  • The physician’s assistant named in the notes did not authorize or create them.
  • Davis reportedly altered a legitimate medical note to extend her work limitation from two weeks to six months.
  • Smith is accused of extending a medical note from eight days to a two-year restriction.
  • District Attorney Nathan Hochman emphasized the seriousness of the charges and their impact on public trust.
  • The investigation was initiated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau.
  • Chief Probation Officer Guillermo Viera Rosa expressed commitment to accountability and integrity within the department.

Context

The Los Angeles County Probation Department has been facing challenges in ensuring adequate staffing levels at juvenile detention facilities, which has been exacerbated by the ongoing issues related to officer attendance and performance.

What happens next

The charged officers will face legal proceedings as the District Attorney’s Office pursues the misdemeanor charges. The outcome will depend on the judicial process and any further investigations that may arise.

What we don't know yet

Details regarding the specific circumstances surrounding the alleged alterations and the broader implications for the probation department's operations remain unconfirmed.